Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 548 posts

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#301

Post by antonvs »

pixl97 wrote: post #247
WorldMaker wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone robot is collecting the various patterns for eventual automation. You are doing free labor for it every time by giving it any information at all and not just immediately yelling for an operator or human. Support solidarity for human kind by refusing to talk these data gathering machines. (I realize this sounds like satire as I write it, that I'm rather serious about this, and that it says a lot about the we…

Eh, in another year or two you'll call up and have no idea if you're talking to a human or not. Game over, we lost.

We lost already when we hired humans to read scripts that made them essentially indistinguishable from machines.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#302

Post by afro88 »

Havoc wrote: post #53

The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…

I've yet to see an AI bot that is both realistic and intelligent enough to keep me engaged (GPT4), but also can't be convinced that 1 + 1 = 3 (also GPT4)

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#304

Post by [deleted] »

null0pointer wrote: post #282
Havoc wrote: post #53

The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…

I've noticed some humans are willing to argue without giving up too. Sometimes online arguments follow a pattern where each response is longer than the last until one person decides it's not worth their time to continue the argument. In my head I've called this "argument by attrition".

[deleted]

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#305

Post by systems_glitch »

thumbuddy wrote: post #57
civilitty wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m working on a startup that’s training LLMs to be authentic so they can simulate human affection and it’s actually working really well! The key is humanity’s ability to pattern match: we’re actually pretty terrible at it. Our brains are so keen on finding patterns that they often spot them where none exist. Remember the face on Mars? It was just a pile of rocks. The same principle applies here. As long as the AI so…

Whew it's satire. Whew. I've literally seen posts on the internet that read like this sans the satire.

Had me for the first half, too.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#306

Post by walleeee »

rcktmrtn wrote: post #131
softbt wrote: post #17

Really don’t like the idea that we will act as interfaces for the AI, I honestly believe it will only many the majority of people lazier and dumber. I’m also incredibly shocked that no one is talking about AI as a friend/companion, that has to not be good for you in the long run. Humans need real human connection, AI is too artificial for that (duh). Having AI friends will be equivalent to consuming fast food instead…

More than interfaces. To quote McLuhan: "Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of the plant world, enabling it to fecundate and to evolve ever new forms. The machine world reciprocates man's love by expediting his wishes and desires, namely, in providing him with wealth." The AI thing has been jarring but it's nothing new. All part of the same process.

McLuhan got it mostly right, but may be interpreted in a way which mischaracterizes wealth. Machines do not create value ex nihilo. Machines allow us to more effectively harvest or transform materials or information, to which we assign value. All wealth currently accessible to us derives from the sun. The vast majority of our present wealth comes from a massive battery trickle-charged over hundreds of millions of years and discharged in the last two centuries.

Implicit in the quotation, but critical to recognize, is that technology is the tip of a vast edifice whose foundation is not us. We and our machines are perched (too precariously for comfort) at the top. We are the sex organs of the machine world because machines can't reproduce without us. But machines are not the sex organs of the human world. Human beings require an ecobiological cocoon. We've also spun an elaborate technological cocoon in recent history, largely by sacrificing the long-term integrity of more fundamental life support.

Everything of value in the human economy is downstream of this. We too often take it for granted and assume the only relevant economic inputs are capital and labor, or we will innovate our way out of materials-, energy- and ecosystem-dependence.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#307

Post by systems_glitch »

jjoonathan wrote: post #266
csours wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's also real https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WSKKolgL2U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replika

Yeah, but can we really call it an AI "revolution" until someone makes a door with a cheerful and sunny disposition that opens with pleasure and closes with the satisfaction of a job well done? Someone should get to work on those Genuine People Personalities!

Many of them get caught, slaughtered, dried out, shipped out and slept on. None of them seems to mind this and all of them are called Zem.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#308

Post by systems_glitch »

Havoc wrote: post #53

The comment by Yuval Noah Harari seemed insightful to me. If you argue against a bot about a political matter, not knowing it’s a bot - you always lose on a long enough timeline. ie you can never pursuade the bot but it can wear you down / eventually find an argument that works. The only winning move is not to play. So I could see this having a chilling effect on all discourse Aside from the whole skynet thing the ab…

IDK having everyone check out on social media to interact with definite humans in meatspace probably is net positive.

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#309

Post by pookha »

When I think of "post-truth" I'm thinking of systems that people mistakenly lock themselves into where they're fed simplistic and surface level facts that have to align with the systems goals. classic example being an activist for a political system (1960's Maoist or whatever)... Why can't I use AI to analyze the immense amounts of content I'm being faced with so as to gauge bias and innuendo? Maybe ML could help me parse this article to understand what milieu this author belongs to and what his biases might be?

Re: Humans aren’t mentally ready for an AI-saturated ‘post-truth world’

#310

Post by ladberg »

hospitalJail wrote: post #296
ladberg wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean the cost of my time that work pays me, just how much money I'd personally pay to avoid doing something something I don't like (schlepping grocery bags on the subway, doing dishes). In general cooking is the fun part and that's what makes it a treat, not the rest of it. Some prepared food within walking distance most definitely is cheaper than all unprepared food within walking distance. It works out just…

>It works out just because the places I can walk to for groceries are incredibly overpriced and the restaurants obviously don't source their food there. I typically don't buy my groceries from the gas station despite them having a half gallon of milk for $4 and it being 3 minutes walking away. I also don't use gas station numbers to determine if something is cheaper or more expensive.

Not sure if you're being facetious or just don't understand the reality of living in NYC...

I can probably walk to a dozen different big grocery stores in 15m and they're ALL more expensive than the cheap fast food in the same area. Not including the smaller expensive bodegas where you can pick up stuff 24/7 every block (kinda like the equivalent of a gas station). A half gallon of milk is $4 at any of the big stores and even more at a smaller place.

Anything cheaper requires a subway ride, which adds more walking and is annoying to do with multiple grocery bags, not to mention adding a flat ~$5 additional cost.

Post reply on HN